Yes that's right. However the warning arrangement is not for general use. There are certain circumstances where it can be used generally- a train failed in the overlap is one case- but it cannot be used to accept a train simply because a train is shunting ahead of 18 signal, or even departing the bay, UNLESS it is specially authorised and shown in the box instructions and sectional appendix. I doubt that the Warning Arrangement (aka "Section Clear, Junction Blocked, aka "Regulation 5") would have been authorised at Millers Dale.

Pete2320 wrote:I'm conscious that this answer is simply saying "thats how it was done" without really explaining why. Hopefully somebody will give a more concise reason.

Pete

Actually, that IS always a good explanation for a historical modeller. It's always interesting to know/understand why, but the fact that the they did something a particular way is the important point to a modeller who wants to get it right.

An example of this would be FPLs. Usually the modeller doesn't want the extra levers, but they should be there except where the points are motor-worked or "because the MR tended to choose to use economic FPLs".

Pete2320 wrote:Yes that's right. However the warning arrangement is not for general use. There are certain circumstances where it can be used generally- a train failed in the overlap is one case- but it cannot be used to accept a train simply because a train is shunting ahead of 18 signal, or even departing the bay, UNLESS it is specially authorised and shown in the box instructions and sectional appendix. I doubt that the Warning Arrangement (aka "Section Clear, Junction Blocked, aka "Regulation 5") would have been authorised at Millers Dale.

Pete

I suspect that view of the warning arrangement is a bit BR-era thinking. Back in 1900 with block working was only fairly recently and in some cases reluctantly introduced. Some companies in the north were perhaps more concerned about working their intensive traffic than with the belt-and-braces extra safety of overlaps that was being imposed on them. The warning arrangement was effectively a compromise that allowed those companies to run freight more permissively but still provided the necessary overlaps for the safety of passenger trains. The BoT was under political pressure to provide much better safety to the travelling public, but under the contemporary culture railway servants engaged in freight were expected to look after their own safety and obey the signals, and overlaps could be seen as a costly luxury. This double-standards is manifest in the title of the "requirements for passenger lines and recommendations for goods.."

But I agree that the MR would be unlikely to authorise the warning at Millers Dale.

Mike Hodgson wrote:But I agree that the MR would be unlikely to authorise the warning at Millers Dale.

Personally, I'm not as positive.

Of all of the pre-grouping railways I have studied closely, the former Midland Railway lines seem to have used Regulation 5 far more than any other and on that basis if there was a good reason to use it to reduce delays I'm sure it would have. Not in connection with passenger trains, mind, but if freights could be kept moving whilst, say, a train was leaving the yard I doubt they would hesitate to authorise it.

(One also has to bear in mind that strict enforcement of Regulation 4 can make model railway operation a little tedious to an audience!).

Pete2320 wrote:Yes that's right. However the warning arrangement is not for general use. ....... but it cannot be used to accept a train simply because a train is shunting ahead of 18 signal, or even departing the bay, UNLESS it is specially authorised and shown in the box instructions and sectional appendix. .........Pete

I've never seen 'warning arrangement' authorites listed in the sectional appendix, they were only shown on the 'box instructions' card.

Pete2320 wrote:Yes that's right. However the warning arrangement is not for general use. ....... but it cannot be used to accept a train simply because a train is shunting ahead of 18 signal, or even departing the bay, UNLESS it is specially authorised and shown in the box instructions and sectional appendix. .........Pete

I've never seen 'warning arrangement' authorites listed in the sectional appendix, they were only shown on the 'box instructions' card.DB

Actually I was wondering that when I wrote previousley but decided the info must be available to loco crews somewhere and the SA seemed the only logical place. I think all the generally permitted circumstances require the driver to be verbally cautioned so when he sees the signalman holding a green flag he is going to want to know why.

This latest discussion on how some trains may have been accepted under the warning arrangement back at around 1900, is of particularly interest to me as a modeller, as I am so keen to get things right from an operational point of view. It’s all very well people like me reading books on signalling, but it’s so easy for me to misconstrue their meaning, as per my assumption earlier, that the warning arrangement could simply be applied where ever and when ever!!

My understanding / interpretation of what has been said above then, is that whilst Millers Dale would have been highly unlikely to have been authorised the use of the warning arrangement per se, it is highly possible that in order to keep traffic moving, where only goods traffic was involved, trains may well have been accepted in this way.

Conversely then, am I also right in thinking that where any of the traffic involved was of a passenger carrying nature, either by being the train fouling the clearing point, or by being the train offered, that the signalman at Millers Dale would then refuse to accept the train being offered, and do so by simply ignoring the ‘is line clear….’ bell from the signalman offering the train?

I have also now measured the approximate distances from both up and down home signals to their corresponding starter or advanced starter, and find them to be about 450 to 500 yards – i.e. just over the ¼ mile clearing point required from each home signal. To this end, would I also be right in thinking that ‘train out of section’ could not be sent until a train passing through the station had fully cleared it’s relevant most advanced starting signal, due to the clearing point still being fouled until such time as this had occurred?

Also, given that a train being shunted into either the up siding or down bay would also enable ‘train out of section to be sent,’ would the opposite also be true, in that any train being shunted onto a main line from either the siding or bay, would require the relevant ‘blocking back’ bell code to be sent to the signal box in rear of the relevant main line?

Mike Sheardown wrote:My understanding / interpretation of what has been said above then, is that whilst Millers Dale would have been highly unlikely to have been authorised the use of the warning arrangement per se, it is highly possible that in order to keep traffic moving, where only goods traffic was involved, trains may well have been accepted in this way.

Yes, it's possible that the warning arrangement would be only authorised for trains not conveying passengers. This would implicitly authorise the TOS bell signal to be sent when a non passenger train had arrived within the home signal. In more recent times the procedure would be to maintain the block indicator at TOL until the train had passed the clearing point or been shunted aside, and then unpeg and send one beat on the bell. I have a feeling that a different procedure would have been used on the MR c1900.

also wrote:My understanding / interpretation of what has been said above then, is that whilst Millers Dale would have been highly unlikely to have been authorised the use of the warning arrangement per se, it is highly possible that in order to keep traffic moving, where only goods traffic was involved, trains may well have been accepted in this way.

Yes.

and wrote:Also, given that a train being shunted into either the up siding or down bay would also enable ‘train out of section to be sent,’ would the opposite also be true, in that any train being shunted onto a main line from either the siding or bay, would require the relevant ‘blocking back’ bell code to be sent to the signal box in rear of the relevant main line?

Errr yes, sort of! Actually there is no requirement to block back provided the movement from the siding, or other line, is not going to come to a stand. So let's consider the Buxton turnabout. The train arrives into the Up platform. The signalman must not send TOS to the box in rear as it is still within the overlap. In turn it is not possible to block back on the Up but neither is it neccessary as the train is still protected by the block. Before authorising the train to crossover the signalman must block back on the Down line. When the train is stood on the Down, TOS can be sent to the box in rear on the Up. When the train is in the Bay TOS can be sent on the Down but remember that the loco may need to run round so the signalman may choose to leave the BBI on so long as he is not going to delay the Manchester express! When it is time for the turnabout to head back to Buxton there will be no need to block back as the train will not be coming to a stand in the overlap. The signalman will undoubtedley ensure he is in a position to clear the Advanced Starter (or even clear it as there is probably no sequential locking) before clearing the Bay starter. Again this is based on relatively recent regulations, c1975. Probably much will be the same but there mayhave been variations on the MR c1900.

Pete2320 wrote: Actually I was wondering that when I wrote previousley but decided the info must be available to loco crews somewhere and the SA seemed the only logical place. I think all the generally permitted circumstances require the driver to be verbally cautioned so when he sees the signalman holding a green flag he is going to want to know why.

This was actually an early example of the modern-day segmented Rule Books - information issued on a "need-to-know" basis.

Drivers needed to know when they were accepted under Regulation 5 as certain types of train needed to be driven differently - i.e certain types of freight had to stop momentarily at the Distant signal as a precaution. They did not need to know why - there were some circumstances other than what we are discussing where any box could accept any train under Regulation 5.

The description of working the Buxton Turnabout was particularly relevant and interesting, as I will also be modelling Buxton in order to fully facilitate these services. The shunting of the through coaches to add / detach from the London expresses will also add interest!!

A few questions though:

Pete2320 wrote: Yes, it's possible that the warning arrangement would be only authorised for trains not conveying passengers. This would implicitly authorise the TOS bell signal to be sent when a non passenger train had arrived within the home signal.

...but what if the sending of the TOS bell as a goods gets inside the home, is immediately followed by ILC for a passenger train? Would this situation not present a conflict, as in essence, the line isn't clear to the clearing point for passenger traffic?

Pete2320 wrote:In more recent times the procedure would be to maintain the block indicator at TOL until the train had passed the clearing point or been shunted aside, and then unpeg and send one beat on the bell. I have a feeling that a different procedure would have been used on the MR c1900.

...I'm confused here, why only one beat, and not the standard 2-1?

Pete2320 wrote:Actually there is no requirement to block back provided the movement from the siding, or other line, is not going to come to a stand.

So if I understand you correctly here, trains would only be regarded as not coming to a stand, where they were proceeding directly on their way e.g. trains leaving the up siding onto the down main through 4 and 5, and then carrying on into the next section after being accepted by the signal box in advance etc. Conversely, where trains / light engines were having to pause on the main (no matter how briefly), for points to be changed etc, this would be regarded as 'coming to a stand,' and BBI would be required prior to this manoeuvre?

Pete2320 wrote:[ Actually I was wondering that when I wrote previousley but decided the info must be available to loco crews somewhere and the SA seemed the only logical place. I think all the generally permitted circumstances require the driver to be verbally cautioned so when he sees the signalman holding a green flag he is going to want to know why.

Pete

No I don't think so - the fact that the green flag is shown is sufficient to tell him to proceed with caution. In some cases the railway company would provide a subsidiary arm to indicate the warning. Where companies had distinctive signals for goods lines, that effectively told you that there was no overlap. That clearly isn't the case in the layout under discussion though.

Pete2320 wrote: Yes, it's possible that the warning arrangement would be only authorised for trains not conveying passengers. This would implicitly authorise the TOS bell signal to be sent when a non passenger train had arrived within the home signal.

...but what if the sending of the TOS bell as a goods gets inside the home, is immediately followed by ILC for a passenger train? Would this situation not present a conflict, as in essence, the line isn't clear to the clearing point for passenger traffic?

Pete2320 wrote:

It was usual that where the warning was authorised it was for goods only.

The precise practice followed for train out of section varied quite a lot between companies, with some harmonisation after grouping (generally around 1930) and again when the 1960 BR regulations came out. Sorry if this is a bit confusing! From memory I think MR practice was to follow the Railway Clearing House rules unmodified: Train out of section when the train complete with lamp has passed the box complete with tail lamp and is protected by the Home signal. The basic problem is that we are using 3-position (or even 2-position) instruments to indicate 4 states of the line:1 Normal - nothing about.2 Line Clear - a train has been accepted but not yet passed the rear box 3 Train on Line - train is between the first box and the second.4 Overlap fouled - train has cleared the section but not the overlap (equivalent to blocked back inside).

Some other companies required the 1/4 mile overlap to be clear or even required the train to have passed ALL the signals at the box in advance AND be proceeding on its journey. Some companies acknowledged 2-1 by 2-1, others by 1. Some companies allowed you to offer a second train even though the block was at ToL, and it was then up to the box in advance to accept fully, to accept under the warning or refuse as appropriate to the state of the line. Others took the view that it was safer if the block told both men whether a second train could be offered - not only would the advance box refuse when it wasn't safe, the man in rear would not even offer.

Usual practice in more recent times was to exchange 2-1 when the section was clear in circumstances where another train could be accepted under the warning, but to leave the block at ToL. Then, once the overlap was clear, you would send Call Attention, and on acknowledgement you would drop the block to normal. The first signal effectively told the rear box that he could now offer a second goods train, the second signal told him it was now OK to offer anything.

Mike Sheardown wrote:Conversely, where trains / light engines were having to pause on the main (no matter how briefly), for points to be changed etc, this would be regarded as 'coming to a stand,' and BBI would be required prior to this manoeuvre?

Yes. I suspect the reasoning behind this is that provided the train keeps moving, it can be expected to have got out of the way by the time the the train being accepted arrives, even if that does then SPAD the Home. However if it stops, it might be unable to restart or the signalman might get distracted so there is greater risk of the overlap being foul. Obviously there is still a risk that the first train might derail, come to a stand because of some failure etc, but this can be seen as an informal risk evaluation that one situation is less dangerous than the other.

Mike Sheardown wrote:Conversely, where trains / light engines were having to pause on the main (no matter how briefly), for points to be changed etc, this would be regarded as 'coming to a stand,' and BBI would be required prior to this manoeuvre?

Yes. I suspect the reasoning behind this is that provided the train keeps moving, it can be expected to have got out of the way by the time the the train being accepted arrives, even if that does then SPAD the Home. However if it stops, it might be unable to restart or the signalman might get distracted so there is greater risk of the overlap being foul. Obviously there is still a risk that the first train might derail, come to a stand because of some failure etc, but this can be seen as an informal risk evaluation that one situation is less dangerous than the other.

Not really. Although it is not necessary to block back for this train, it would still not be permitted to accept another from the box in rear until the overlap is clear. But yes, I suppose if one is accepted in error (the man in rear is going to offer it as he does not know what is happenindg at the box in advance of him) then the train that was fouling the overlap should be well out of the way by the time another arrives.

Thanks very much for your responses to my queries Mike - they're really helpful, and I feel that I am gettig a far better understanding of the realities of working to absolute block in 1900!!

I also find it fascinating how different companies and different railway eras, used different approaches to handling the same situation. I particularly liked your description of the more modern approach to distinguishing between a train that has cleared the home but not the clearing point, and one that has fully cleared the clearing point, by use of the 2-1 bell code but leaving ToL for the former, and then 1 beat on the bell followed by clearing the instrument to Normal, for the latter. It's such a simple solution to the problem, and a shame I shouldn’t really be using it, if I truly want to replicate the way things were done in 1900!!